CongressIn response to whether the Congress had the authority to charter the bank, Marshal referred to the “necessary and proper” clause in the Constitution, declaring that not every power of the Congress is spelled out in painstaking detail in the Constitution. The “necessary and proper” clause was not intended to strictly limit the power of the national government, Marshall argued, but it is a provision “made in a Constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” As long as the aims of the Congress remain “legitimate [and] within the scope of the Constitution,” all of its actions “which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional.”Having concluded that the creation of the Bank of the United States was within the Constitutional authority of the Congress, Marshall then turned to the question of whether Maryland had the authority to tax the bank, declaring that the “great principle” of the Constitution is that “laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme; that they control the Constitution and laws of the respective States, and cannot be controlled by them.” If a state were allowed to ignore the laws passed by the national government consistent with the Constitution, it would be, in effect, controlling the national government. Moreover, if a state could tax an activity of the national government, in this case the national bank, it had the power to destroy the national government. Such would clearly be a violation of the supremacy clause of the Constitution. Maryland’s tax on the bank, therefore, was unconstitutional.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License |